IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.09.2025 Pronounced on: 18.09.2025 Sukhdev Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Kanisth Ganeriwala, Advocate for the petitioner. (through V.C.)

Mr. Atul Gaur, AAG, Haryana.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

398 13.09.2023 Ellenabad, Distt. Sirsa 15C, 27A, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court second time under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2. As per paragraph 16 of the bail application and as per paragraph 9 of the status report, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Year Offenses Police Station

1. 10 2018 2, 29 of NDPS Act Nagaur, Rajasthan 2. 68 2020 451, 323, 325, 427, 336, 34 IPC Nagaur, Rajasthan

3. 160 2024 8, 15, 29 of NDPS Act Khinsver

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 13.09.2023, based on secret information, the Police stopped one Bolero Camper van in which one Buta Singh is travelling and another car make Honda City piloting ahead in which one Anmol Singh, Gursewak Singh @ Babloo and Gurpal Singh @ Tindi were travelling for checknig. On checking the vehicles, the police seized 170 kg of poppy straw/doda post from the Bolero Camper van. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. Name of the petitioner has been surfaced in the disclosure statement of co-accused.

4. The petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody.

5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family.

6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Special Judge or Sessions Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.

7. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.

REASONING

8. As per paragraph 2 of the status report, the name of the contraband is poppy straw and its weight is 170 Kg.

9. Dealing in 170 Kg of Poppy Straw in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

0

therefrom;

10. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions set forth by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

11. As per the para 3 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 15.07.2024. As per custody certificate dated 25.07.2025, the petitioner's c